Natriuretic peptides for the detection of diastolic dysfunction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction—a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Medicine

M. Louis Handoko¹  Stephane R. B. Heymans²  Vanessa van Empel³  Michiel T. H. M. Henkens³  Joline W. J. Beulens⁴  Adriana J. van Ballegooijen⁴  Elisa Dal Canto⁴  Sharon Remmelzwaal⁴  Linda J. Schoonmade⁵ 

[1] Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam;Department of Cardiology, CARIM School for Cardiovascular Diseases Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University;Department of Cardiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre;Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, VU University Medical Centre;University Library, VU;

关键词: Diastolic dysfunction;    Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction;    Natriuretic peptides;    Systematic review;    Diagnostic test;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-020-01764-x

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background An overview of the diagnostic performance of natriuretic peptides (NPs) for the detection of diastolic dysfunction (DD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in a non-acute setting, is currently lacking. Methods We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase.com (May 13, 2019). Studies were included when they (1) reported diagnostic performance measures, (2) are for the detection of DD or HFpEF in a non-acute setting, (3) are compared with a control group without DD or HFpEF or with patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, (4) are in a cross-sectional design. Two investigators independently assessed risk of bias of the included studies according to the QUADAS-2 checklist. Results were meta-analysed when three or more studies reported a similar diagnostic measure. Results From 11,728 titles/abstracts, we included 51 studies. The meta-analysis indicated a reasonable diagnostic performance for both NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF based on AUC values of approximately 0.80 (0.73–0.87; I 2 = 86%). For both NPs, sensitivity was lower than specificity for the detection of DD and HFpEF: approximately 65% (51–85%; I 2 = 95%) versus 80% (70–90%; I 2 = 97%), respectively. Both NPs have adequate ability to rule out DD: negative predictive value of approximately 85% (78–93%; I 2 = 95%). The ability of both NPs to prove DD is lower: positive predictive value of approximately 60% (30–90%; I 2 = 99%). Conclusion The diagnostic performance of NPs for the detection of DD and HFpEF is reasonable. However, they may be used to rule out DD or HFpEF, and not for the diagnosis of DD or HFpEF.

【 授权许可】

Unknown